why is it "wrong" to hit a woman?

[namiloveyou]

(07-01-2013 02:41 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 09:03 PM)namiloveyou Wrote:  if you're citing that some moral traits stem from evolution, then morals are thus objective, which to me is silly. I think this anti-hitting women thing stems from chivalry/male supremacy of past centuries.

How is this mutually exclusive?

You do realize, don't you, that our evolution is 4 billions years old. Our evolution as mammals is maybe a hundred million years old, give or take. Our evolution as primates is still tens of millions of years old.

Our code of chivalry is only a few hundred years old. Where do you think that code of chivalry came from, anyway? Do you think one day some guy woke up and said "Today I shall be chivalrous; I shall no longer batter women."?

Or is it possible that the code of chivalry is a social extension of our evolutionary bias to protect rather than batter the weaker (sorry ladies, but I only mean in terms of musculoskeletal development) gender?

And while you're pondering this question, if you do, also consider this one - why did almost every culture on earth develop similar codes of chivalry despite having no interaction with each other? Some of the most notable examples are Europe/Japan - when the first Europeans discovered the orient, the Japanese had a very strong "chivalrous" code of Bushido that expressly forbids aggression toward women. Or Old World/New World - clearly the Native American tribes in the New World had no influence from the Old World, but when Columbus first discovered them, and all subsequent discoveries, just about all Native American tribes had "chivalrous" behavior and even laws (such as they were) to protect women from being assaulted by men.

Even in cultures where men regularly punish their wives by beating them, they don't walk around town beating other women - something about the way they treat wives as property allows them to beat only those women, but even those cultures significantly frown on assaulting other women who aren't direct property of the assaulting male. (Ug, that practice disgusts me far more than my dispassionate explanation would make it seem).

(06-01-2013 09:03 PM)namiloveyou Wrote:  Women may think that men treat them better as a favour or kind deed, but it's ultimately based on male supremacy.

Now that is probably true, as I've already pointed out. Supremacy in the sense of bigger, stronger, deadlier. We wouldn't have been very viable from an evolutionary standpoint if the bigger, stronger, deadlier gender habitually assaulted the weaker, often pregnant, gender. So we evolved an instinctive avoidance of it as an evolutionary imperative.

Our male superiority in this regard, which took hundreds of millions of years to evolve, is exactly why our social morals which took a few thousand years to evolve proscribe assaulting women.

No. Male supremacy in the fact that women are inferior to men or generally of lesser value to us.

[namiloveyou]

(07-01-2013 02:41 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 09:03 PM)namiloveyou Wrote:  if you're citing that some moral traits stem from evolution, then morals are thus objective, which to me is silly. I think this anti-hitting women thing stems from chivalry/male supremacy of past centuries.

How is this mutually exclusive?

You do realize, don't you, that our evolution is 4 billions years old. Our evolution as mammals is maybe a hundred million years old, give or take. Our evolution as primates is still tens of millions of years old.

Our code of chivalry is only a few hundred years old. Where do you think that code of chivalry came from, anyway? Do you think one day some guy woke up and said "Today I shall be chivalrous; I shall no longer batter women."?

Or is it possible that the code of chivalry is a social extension of our evolutionary bias to protect rather than batter the weaker (sorry ladies, but I only mean in terms of musculoskeletal development) gender?

And while you're pondering this question, if you do, also consider this one - why did almost every culture on earth develop similar codes of chivalry despite having no interaction with each other? Some of the most notable examples are Europe/Japan - when the first Europeans discovered the orient, the Japanese had a very strong "chivalrous" code of Bushido that expressly forbids aggression toward women. Or Old World/New World - clearly the Native American tribes in the New World had no influence from the Old World, but when Columbus first discovered them, and all subsequent discoveries, just about all Native American tribes had "chivalrous" behavior and even laws (such as they were) to protect women from being assaulted by men.

Even in cultures where men regularly punish their wives by beating them, they don't walk around town beating other women - something about the way they treat wives as property allows them to beat only those women, but even those cultures significantly frown on assaulting other women who aren't direct property of the assaulting male. (Ug, that practice disgusts me far more than my dispassionate explanation would make it seem).

(06-01-2013 09:03 PM)namiloveyou Wrote:  Women may think that men treat them better as a favour or kind deed, but it's ultimately based on male supremacy.

Now that is probably true, as I've already pointed out. Supremacy in the sense of bigger, stronger, deadlier. We wouldn't have been very viable from an evolutionary standpoint if the bigger, stronger, deadlier gender habitually assaulted the weaker, often pregnant, gender. So we evolved an instinctive avoidance of it as an evolutionary imperative.

Our male superiority in this regard, which took hundreds of millions of years to evolve, is exactly why our social morals which took a few thousand years to evolve proscribe assaulting women.

No. Male supremacy in the fact that women are inferior to men or generally of lesser value to us.

[cheapthrillseaker]

I foresee this thread hitting a new bottom.

Trying to gain more XP as a troll, aren't you nami?

[Vera]

(07-01-2013 08:52 AM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  Trying to gain more XP as a troll, aren't you nami?

And failing miserably... Honestly, it should've been obnoxious, but it's just unbelievably boring. It would beat even drying paint in a most boring contest.

[Aseptic Skeptic]

(07-01-2013 08:47 AM)namiloveyou Wrote:  No. Male supremacy in the fact that women are inferior to men or generally of lesser value to us.

You mean "of lesser value to you" in which case, you're doing it wrong.

[namiloveyou]

(07-01-2013 01:06 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 08:47 AM)namiloveyou Wrote:  No. Male supremacy in the fact that women are inferior to men or generally of lesser value to us.

You mean "of lesser value to you" in which case, you're doing it wrong.

What? You misread my point.

[cheapthrillseaker]

Okay, lets stop here. That way if nothing else is said, the thread will die. I hate to be the person with the last word, so reply with agreement. Or nothing. Or derailers. Or continue and allow this troll to gain more XP points.

[Chas]

(07-01-2013 03:04 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  Okay, lets stop here. That way if nothing else is said, the thread will die. I hate to be the person with the last word, so reply with agreement. Or nothing. Or derailers. Or continue and allow this troll to gain more XP points.

I am happy to let you have the last word.

[Logica Humano]

Who said the troll is gaining experience points? We are simply ramming our fists of knowledge into its ignorant throat.

[kim]

(07-01-2013 01:14 PM)namiloveyou Wrote:  What? You misread my point.

Oh? Maybe you have no idea how to properly articulate a statement for anyone to extrapolate a point.